Gokul Prasad, J.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in a suit brought by them for curtain property as next reversioners to the estate of one Guptar who had died leaving a widow Raj Rani and a daughter Jaipali. On the 26th of February JS8I she made a gift of the whole of the property left by her husband in favour of her daughter Jaipali. Musammat Jaipali died during the life time of her mother and her daughter, Musammat Sartaji took possession of the gifted property. Musammat Rajrani, the widow, died in the year 1918 and after her death Balraj, the father of the appellants, sued for possession of the property. He died pending the suit and the present plaintiffs, his sons, have been brought on the record in his place. The plea raised in defence was that the plaintiffs had no cause of action, that the claim was barred by adverse possession as Musammat Jaipali had died more than twelve years age, and that Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure barred the suit.
2. The Munsif found all the pleas in favour of the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. The plea of res judicata was based on a previous suit brought by Balraj for a declaration that the transfer by Rajrani in favour of Jaipali would be ineffective against him, the next reversioner. That suit was dismissed on the ground that, as Rajrani was still alive, the then plaintiff could not get a declaration that he was the next reversioner.
3. The defendant went up in appeal and the learned Second Additional Subordinate, Judge has come to the conclusion that the gift by Rajrani to her daughter, Jaipali, amounted to an acceleration or surrender of the estate in favour of Jaipali, and as Jaipali, died more than 12 years ago and Musammat Sartaji, who had married a second time, had been in possession for over 12 years this suit was barred by time. He therefore, dismissed the claim, The plaintiffs come here in second appeal.
4. In my opinion the doctrine of surrender does not apply to this case. The widow gave the property to the daughter as her marriage portion, as is quite clear from the gift which is on the record. The plaintiffs cause of action for possession, therefore, arose on the death of Mhsammat Rajrani which happened within twelve years of the present suit. On the question of res judicata I am in perfect accord with the finding of the Munsif.
5. The result of the above finding is that, the plaintiffs' suit should be decreed. I therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts.